DOCSLIB.ORG

Schrenk. Ernst Mach on the Self

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Ernst Mach on the Self: The Deconstruction of the Ego as an Attempt to avoid Solipsism Dr. Markus Schrenk DFG Project Explanation and Causation Philosophisches Seminar Universität zu Köln Richard-Strauss-Straße 2 50931 Köln, Germany [email protected] www.clde.uni-koeln.de/schrenk 1 | 9 Abstract. In his Contributions to the Analysis of the Sensations (Mach 1885) the phenomenalist philosopher Ernst Mach confronts us with a difficulty: “If we regard the Ego as a real unity, we become involved in the following dilemma: either we must set over against the Ego a world of unknowable entities […] or we must regard the whole world, the Egos of other people included, as comprised in our own Ego.” (Mach 1885: 21) In other words, if we start from a phenomenalist viewpoint, i.e., if we believe that t h e m a n i f o l d o f sensations we are confronted with is o n t o l o g i c a l l y fundamental —as Mach clearly does: “ F o r u s , c o l o r s , s o u n d s , s p a c e s , t i m e s , … a r e t h e ultimate ele- ments” (Mach 1885: 23)—then we are in danger to end up in solipsism. Unless, that is, we assume that some underlying t h i n g - i n - i t s e l f s u b s t r a t u m f r o m which matter, we ourselves, and all the others emanate. The only other alter- native seems to be— and Mach advertises it vehemently for he denies any “mons- trous notion of a Fig. 1 thing-in-itself” (Mach 1885: 6)1—that we get rid of the Ego. For, if there is no Self in the first place, then the question whether there are others dissolves. To put it the other way round, it is ok that the others do not exist because, really, I do not exist either. If the Ego is a Myth solipsism is not just wrong but nonsense. There are two questions this paper wishes to address: first, do we need independent additional support for the denial of the Self or is the avoidance of solipsism reason enough to assume the Ego’s non-existence? I will argue that we do need additional reasons and I will evaluate those that Mach indeed gives to prove that “the primary fact is not the I, the Ego, but the elements (sensations)” (Mach 1885: 19). Second, is the deconstruction of the I, even if further sufficient support can be found, really adequate to stop us from worrying about solipsism? The doubt I will put forward is that the illusion of a Self might conjure up enough of an Ego—just like feeling a pain is having a pain, even if it is located in a phantom limb—to start us wondering whether it also occurs elsewhere. 1 Needless to say, there are no souls or transcendental egos either. Fig 1.: Illustrations from Mach’s Contributions to the Analysis of the Sensations; apparently drawn by himself. 2 | 9 (1) What is and how do we end up with a thesis like Solipsism? Solipsism is the doctrine, or, rather, the fear that only oneself exists. More precisely, for one might sadly be the only survivor of a nuclear war, a solipsist believes that everything is construed by him or her as part of the content of his or her consciousness. Solipsism often goes hand in hand with external world scepticism but it does not have to. In fact, all of the four following combinations of two affirmations and two rejections are possible: What we ordinarily believe is, I suppose, (1.1) that there is a mind independent external world and that there are also other minds, thus rejecting both external world and other minds scepticism. Bishop Berkeley thought (1.2) that there is no external world (or only one imagined by god), yet, he did not doubt the existence of other minds. The reverse is also possible, while, to my knowledge, never defended: (1.3) the world, including other bodies, but no other minds exist (this would be a world full of what has become known as “Zombies” within analytic philosophy of mind). Last but not least, we might believe (1.4) that there is neither an external world nor that there are other minds. This is the extreme combination—external world scepticism plus solipsism—I will be concerned with here.2 Further focussing on the epistemological side of things we see that the problem of solipsism emerges easily as a consequence of epistemic theories cum theories of perception that start with the assumption that the immediate objects of our experiences are sense impressions (sense data, ideas, percepts, and the like) and that the objects of the external world, including other persons, are at best mediate (if not inexistent). Arguments from hallucination, dreams, evil daemons, brains in vats, matrices, etc. attest to these confined epistemologies to which, for example, many empiricists, phenomenalists, phenomenologist subscribe in one form or another. (2) What can we do? Four orthodox answers. Before I go into some detail of one such theory, Ernst Mach’s phenomenalism, I first briefly sketch four known answers (or types of answer) to the solipsist. (2.1) God to the Rescue. As mentioned already, Bishop Berkeley thought the world exists in god’s imagination and all other minds participate in this divine resource. While Berkeley’s move is not directly countering solipsism but rather the fear of the in-existence of the external world it is granted that if an extra mental world is somehow secured, and should it only be in some transcendent being’s mind, then solipsism is less of a threat: if god accounts already for something external why should he not be so kind to also create other minds? Being methodologically agnostic as philosophers (if not proper atheists), we must, however, dismiss Berkeley’s and other religious answers to solipsism. Unless, of course, we come to believe that solipsism/scepticism can only be solved by a leap of faith, i.e., only if we are forced to derive the existence of god from the otherwise irresolvable problem of solipsism. Yet, for my part, I would not want to cross that bridge until we should come to it. 2 In fact, I will deal with the worst ontological form of it, for we might further distinguish the above metaphysical theses from (weaker) corresponding epistemic forms that formulate (1.2) - (1.4) only as contrived epistemic possibilities: for all we know (because all we know for certain is the content of our consciousness) (1.2) - (1.4) might be true, yet, fortunately, they really aren’t for it’s (ontologically) agreed that (1.1) is correct. 3 | 9 (2.2) Analogical Inference, Theoretical Entities, Behaviourism. Analogical Inference. In similar circumstances, other human bodies with the same physico- chemical composition behave like my body. So, I might conclude that they have a mind just like I do.3 Theoretical Entities. Like other (scientific) theoretical entities, the stipulation of other minds is a useful tool for predictions of other bodies' behaviour. I.e., other minds are the best explanation of other bodies' trajectories through space and time and, so, we may postulate their existence. Behaviourism. Adopt behaviourism as your theory of mind then there is no special problem to have access to other minds, for all there is to know about minds is anyway only their behavioural dispositions which manifest themselves in bodily movements (including, if you wish, the noises these bodies make with their tongues). These three similar solutions are, of course, only possible if you have already taken the existence of the external world for granted. In other words, they are answers to (or rejections of) the zombie-world as depicted in (1.3). Since this paper focuses on type-(1.4) solipsism, where also the external world is in peril, (2.2) cannot be a solution, at least not on its own. (2.3) Eliminativism Materialism. Likewise with eliminative materialism:4 sure, if there are no minds at all then the problem of other minds seems not to arise a forteriori. Yet, again, eliminative materialism presupposes, just like the answers given in (2.2), the existence of the external world and is thus, not a solution to our problem unless we supplement a proof that the external world exists. (Be that as it may, eliminative materialism foreshadows an aspect of the solution to solipsism Ernst Mach favours and which will later be the main focus of this paper.) (2.4) Others first. One further line of argument against other-minds-scepticism argues that to think of certain mental states as mine is, in the first place, to discriminate them from mental states that are not mine, and these latter are, by definition, the mental states of others. One way to argue for a position like this centres on language and says that language is essentially a public phenomenon. Very crudely put, the assumptions needed to start the sceptical/solipsistic argument are, if true, the very ones that make it false: to be able to entertain the thought that I am the only one or that there is no external world the concepts “world”, “exists”, “I”, “external” have to be known, and yet, their acquisition and/or meaning depends on worldly and interpersonal interaction.5 3 Ayer, in his Language, Truth, and Logic (p.136) acknowledges in a separate subchapter (which appears in the extended table of contents, yet, not as headline in the main text) that his phenomenalism gives rise to the problem of solipsism.
Recommended publications
  • FACING the PROBLEM of ETHICAL SOLIPSISM Sami Pihlström

    FACING the PROBLEM of ETHICAL SOLIPSISM Sami Pihlström

    Cosmos and History: The Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy, vol. 7, no. 2, 2011 GUILT: FACING THE PROBLEM OF ETHICAL SOLIPSISM Sami Pihlström ABSTRACT: This article deals with the constitutive role played by the emotion of guilt, or the capacity of experiencing such emotions, in our moral life. The deeply personal nature of moral guilt (or remorse) leads to the problem of ethical solipsism: it seems that guilt can in the end concern only me, not anyone else, in a morally profound sense. Echoing Dostoevsky, the truly ethical thinker ought to acknowledge that everyone is guilty in front of the entire mankind, “and I more than anyone else”. This problematic feature of our moral perspectives on the world is examined through comments on a number of authors, including Kant, Wittgenstein, Levinas, Gaita, and Todorov. While we do need to avoid solipsism, there is a “truth” hidden in it: morality is something that we are individually and personally deeply responsible for. 1 Immanuel Kant remarks, in a famous footnote to the First Critique, that [t]he real morality of actions (their merit and guilt), even that of our own conduct […] remains entirely hidden from us. Our imputations can be referred only to the empirical character. How much of it is to be ascribed to mere nature […] no one can discover, and hence no one can judge it with complete justice.1 Although commentators have drawn attention to this important passage,2 its full significance still deserves substantial consideration. So does the significance of another famous Kantian remark, according to which, for each one of us, “the depths of his own heart (the subjective first grounds of his maxims) are to him inscrutable”.3 1 Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, trans.
  • The Yogācāra Theory of Three Natures: Internalist and Non-Dualist Interpretation

    The Yogācāra Theory of Three Natures: Internalist and Non-Dualist Interpretation

    Comparative Philosophy Volume 9, No. 1 (2018): 18-31 Open Access / ISSN 2151-6014 www.comparativephilosophy.org THE YOGĀCĀRA THEORY OF THREE NATURES: INTERNALIST AND NON-DUALIST INTERPRETATION MATTHEW MACKENZIE ABSTRACT: According to Vasubandhu’s Trisvabhāvanirdeśa or Treatise on the Three Natures, experiential phenomena can be understood in terms of three natures: the constructed (parikalpita), the dependent (paratantra), and the consummate (pariniṣpanna). This paper will examine internalist and anti-internalist or non-dualist interpretations of the Yogācāra theory of the three natures of experience. The internalist interpretation is based on representationalist theory of experience wherein the contents of experience are logically independent of their cause and various interconnected cognitive processes continually create an integrated internal world-model that is transparent to the cognitive system that creates and uses it. In contrast, the anti-internalist interpretation begins, not from the constructed nature of experiential objects, but from the perfected nature of mind-world non-duality. This interpretation treats the distinctions between inside and outside, subject and object, mind and world as distinctions drawn within experience rather than between experience and something else. And experience here refers to the continuous dynamic interplay of factors constituting our sentient embodied (nāma-rūpa) existence. Having examined each interpretation, the paper will suggest some reasons to favor the non-dualist view. Keywords: Yogācāra, Buddhist idealism, internalism, non-dualism, three natures of phenomena, Vasubandhu, solipsism 1. INTRODUCTION According to Vasubandhu’s Trisvabhāvanirdeśa or Treatise on the Three Natures, experiential phenomena can be understood in terms of three natures (svabhāva) and three forms of naturelessness (niḥsvabhāvatā). The three natures are the fabricated or constructed nature (parikalpita-svabhāva), the dependent nature (paratantra- svabhāva), and the perfected or consummate nature (pariniṣpanna-svabhāva).
  • The Interplay Between Relations, Substances, and Existence By

    The Interplay Between Relations, Substances, and Existence By

    The Interplay Between Relations, Substances, and Existence By Andrew Janes A Thesis Submitted to Saint Mary’s University, Halifax, Nova Scotia in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Arts - Honours in Philosophy. April, 2019, Halifax, Nova Scotia Copyright Andrew Janes, 2019 Approved: Scott Edgar Doctor Date: 12/04/19 ​ 2 The Interplay Between Relations, Substances, and Existence by Andrew Janes Abstract This thesis explores the ontology of relations and the implications of it. I make the case that relations between multiple substances are impossible. Furthermore, I argue that existence is a predicate, and can therefore be the predicate of a relation. I do this to push the argument that substances cannot exist in relation to each other. The conclusion I make from this is that only one substance can exist, since otherwise a substance could exist in relation to another substance. This conclusion, I point out, is the doctrine of substance monism. Furthermore, I argue that the self exists, because it is given in experience. Because the self is a substance, and I have argued for substance monism, the self is the only substance there is. This conclusion is idealism, and, in conjunction with substance monism, necessitates solipsism. 12/04/19 3 1. Introduction In this paper, I investigate the commitments one must make when they uphold the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR),1 which asserts that for every fact, truth, and state of affairs, there is a sufficient reason that explains why it holds. More specifically, I aim to investigate commitments regarding relations. Furthermore, I aim to show why these commitments ultimately lead to an abandonment of substance pluralism2 and realism.3 That is, one must abandon the PSR if they are to believe that substance pluralism or realism holds true, or abandon substance pluralism and realism if they believe the PSR to be true.
  • Phenomenological Aspects of Wittgenstein's Philosophy Synthese Library

    Phenomenological Aspects of Wittgenstein's Philosophy Synthese Library

    PHENOMENOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF WITTGENSTEIN'S PHILOSOPHY SYNTHESE LIBRARY STUDIES IN EPISTEMOLOGY, LOGIC, METHODOLOGY, AND PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE Managing Editor: JAAKKO HINTIKKA, Boston University Editors: DIRK VAN DALEN, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands DONALD DAVIDSON, University of California, Berkeley THEO A.F. KUIPERS, University of Groningen, The Netherlands PATRICK SUPPES, Stanford University, California JAN WOLENSKI, Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Poland VOLUME 268 BYONG-CHUL PARK Pusan University of Foreign Studies, Pusan, Korea PHENOMENOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF WITTGENSTEIN'S PHILOSOPHY id SPRINGER-SCIENCE+BUSINESS MEDIA, B.V. A CLP. Catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. ISBN 978-94-010-6165-0 ISBN 978-94-011-5151-1 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-94-011-5151-1 Printed on acid-free paper All Rights Reserved © 1998 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht Originally published by Kluwer Academic Publishers in 1998 Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 1998 No part of the material protected by this copyright notice may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from the copyright owner TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE Vll CHAPTER I. Wittgenstein's Phenomenology 1 1. Wittgenstein's Phenomenology 1 2. The Background ofWittgenstein's Idea of Phenomenology 8 3. Phenomenology VS. Phenomenalism 18 CHAPTER II. Phenomenology of the Tractatus 25 1. Russell's Influence on the Early Wittgenstein 25 2. The Nature of Tractarian Objects 34 3. Husserl, Russell, and Wittgenstein 41 4. Phenomenology and Solipsism 48 5. Solipsism I 58 6.
  • Social Construct Theory: Relativism's Latest Fashion

    Social Construct Theory: Relativism's Latest Fashion

    Social Construct Theory: Relativism's Latest Fashion Curtis L. Hancock Modern intellectuals dislike being called "relativists" and "subjectivists" as much as politicians dislike being called "liberals." Despite refusal to wear these labels, many modern intellectuals, just like the politicians, speak and behave in ways that betray their allegiance to what, in rhetoric, they abjure. A conspicuous example of this double-think is the modern fashion known in psychology as "social construct theory," aka "personal construct theory." In this essay, I will show that, in spite of their protests to the contrary, social construct theory collapses irretrievably into both moral and epistemological relativism. In fact, it will become clear that social construct theory cannot, if it is to remain consistent, escape solipsism. These and lesser objections included here conspire to demonstrate that social construct theory is incoherent and untenable. It is just another episode in a long-standing romance with irrationalism that has characterized modern epistemologies. If social scientists are treading the path of social construct theory in hope of solving stubborn problems, they are misled; they are walking down a cul-de-sac. The only remedy for their problems is to avoid the cul-de-sac in the first place. They are sorely in need of an alternative epistemology. 1 To assay social construct theory, I will examine the position of Kenneth Gergen, whose work is influential and clearly formulated. Gergen's position is representative of social construct theory at large. Reference to other representatives of social construct theory will not be neglected, but to economize 1 I am indebted to Dr.
  • Notes on Solipsism

    Notes on Solipsism

    Notes on solipsism P.W. Adriaans, Introduction. Solipsism is a phenomenon that has played a modest role in philosophical theorizing since about 1700. Although few philosophers can be called ‘Solipsist’ in the proper sense, solipsism is treated in many publications as a serious consequence of certain epistemological, metaphysical and ethical positions. This often happens casually, without a thorough examination of the assumptions and concepts involved. One occasionally sees rebuttals of solipsism in publications, but these are usually based on some dubious definitions of what solipsism should be. The result is that quite a few and to my knowledge no recent publications are, engaged in a scientific analysis of the phenomenon of solipsism itself in a more comprehensive perspective of various disciplines such as history, psychology, logic, epistemology, metaphysics, anthropology etc. In this note I give an analysis of the origins and historical development of the term 'solipsism'. In the second part I continue with an analysis of the origins and historical development of the problem or phenomenon of solipsism. The origins and historical development of the term 'solipsism'. The development of the term 'solipsism' is closely related to the development of a group of other terms like 'egotism', 'egoism' and 'Egomism’. These words are relatively young and have emerged during the Enlightenment. In this period of philosophical innovation many neologisms were formed. Traditional philosophical terms are: ego, individualitas, persona. Terms derived from mysticism and rediscovered by the French quietists seem to have been particularly attractive: the prefix "ego" and suffixes like "-ismus' and '-ista'. Some of these words found general acceptance.
  • Final Version: O'brien, LF (1996), 'Solipsism and Self-Reference'

    Final Version: O'brien, LF (1996), 'Solipsism and Self-Reference'

    Final Version: O’Brien, L. F. (1996), ‘Solipsism and Self-Reference’, European Journal of Philosophy 4:175-194. Solipsism and Self-Reference ! I. Introduction In this paper I want to propose that we see solipsism as arising from certain problems we have about identifying ourselves as subjects in an objective world. The discussion will centre on Wittgenstein’s treatment of solipsism in his Tractatus Logico- Philosophicus. In that work Wittgenstein can be seen to express an unusually profound understanding of the problems faced in trying to give an account of how we, who are subjects, identify ourselves as objects in the world. We have in his compressed remarks, the kernels of a number of arguments which all come together to form what can be called the problem of self-identification. I want to argue that the solipsism of the Tractatus arises at least in part as a solution to, or – to put it less optimistically – as a symptom or articulation of this problem. In approaching Wittgenstein’s early discussion of solipsism in this way I will obviously be in disagreement with some other interpretations of the work. For example, there are those who think that there is no ‘solipsism of the Tractatus’.1 In fact, the Tractarian arguments presented below as motivating solipsism have been seen as fulfilling the quite opposite function of refuting it. I do not intend in this piece to engage with alternative interpretations. Let me say a little bit about why I have granted myself the licence not to do so. First, the focus of my concern with solipsism is on how it connects with what I have called the problem of self-identification.
  • The Solipsism of Religion

    The Solipsism of Religion

    THE SOLIPSISM OF RELIGION BY T. B. STORK until YES : Solipsism, that word of dread, despised and set aside restored to its proper place, rehabilitated by the great bishop in his Priiicihlcs of Kiioi^lcdgc. For Rishop Berkeley showed beyond all criticism that the doctrine of Solipism was in the intellectual world when properly qualified the only philoso])hically sound posi- tion. The knowledge of himself and of his own internal state is all the indubitable knowledge vouchsafed man, all else is inference, con- jecture, more or less assured. Descartes recognized the truth of the doctrine in his Cogifn ergo siiin that certified to a man his own existence bv the only trustworthy evidence, his own consciousness. Just as in the intellectual world so in the spiritual world—per- haps we should say a fortiori—are we shut in upon ourselves. All we really know is the condition of our own soul. And is not that all we are required to know ? A failure to recognize this truth of Solipsism and its equally im- portant qualification is at the root of all the intellectual difficulties of religious discussions. For Berkeley not only announced that all we know certainy is our internal state of consciousness, but he added the qualification that we can know nothing else with equal certainty, the certainty demanded by philosophy. The endless and fruitless discussions of God's dealing with men, of the inconsistencies of nominal Christians, of the thousand and one external facts that seem contradictory of our ethical notions of right and wrong all ignore this great and fundamental truth.
  • Contemporary Philosophical Naturalism: in Concept and Critique

    Contemporary Philosophical Naturalism: in Concept and Critique

    University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 2004 Contemporary philosophical naturalism: In concept and critique James Carlin Watson The University of Montana Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Watson, James Carlin, "Contemporary philosophical naturalism: In concept and critique" (2004). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 5022. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/5022 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Maureen and Mike MANSFIELD LIBRARY The University of Montana Permission is granted by the author to reproduce this material in its entirety, provided that this material is used for scholarly purposes and is properly cited in published works and reports. **Please check "Yes” or "No" and provide signature** Yes, I grant permission No, I do not grant permission Author's Signature: Date: Any copying for commercial purposes or financial gain may be undertaken only with the author's explicit consent. 8/98 Contemporary Philosophical Naturalism: In Concept and Critique by James Carlin Watson B. S. Lee University, Cleveland, TN, 2000 presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts' The University of Montana December 2004 Approved by: Chairperson Dean, Graduate School l** I'OS Date UMI Number.
  • Kant Lucien Goldmann

    Kant Lucien Goldmann

    KANT LUCIEN GOLDMANN k Lucien Goldmann ! London j NLB • ! Atlantic Highlands i HUMANITIES PRESS Immanuel Kant First published as Mensch, Gemeinschaft und Welt in der Philosophie Immanuel Kants by Europa-Verlag, Zürich, 1945 © Europa-Verlag, 1945 New, revised and enlarged edition first published as Introduction ä la Philosophie de Kant by Gallimard, 1967 © Editions Gallimard, 1967 This edition first published 1971 Translated from the French and German by Robert Black © NLB, 1971 NLB, 7 Carlisle Street, London wi Designed by Gerald Cinamon Typeset in Monotype Ehrhardt and printed by Western Printing Services Ltd, Bristol SBN 902308 85 2 TO MADELEINE DUCLOS AND THEOPHILE SPOERRI Acknowledgments 8 Translator's note 9 Preface to the 1967 French edition 13 From the Preface to the first French edition, 1948 17 From the Preface to the original (German) edition, 1945 19 Introduction 21 PART I 1. Classical Philosophy and the Western Bourgeoisie 31 2. The Category of Totality in the Thought of Kant and in Philosophy in General 50 3. The Precritical Period 58 PART II 1. The Critical Philosophy and its Problems 101 2. What Can I Know ? 131 3. What Ought I to Do ? 170 4. What May I Hope for ? 180 The Present - Beauty 182 Eternity - God, Immortality 193 The Future - History 205 Conclusion: What is Man? Kant and Contemporary Philosophy 223 Index 231 Acknowledgments: We would like to thank the following for permission to quote passages from works by Kant published by them: Macmillan & Co. Ltd for Critique of Pure Reason; Manchester University Press for Selected Pre-critical Writings; Cambridge University Press for Kant's Political Writings; The Clarendon Press for Critique of Aesthetic Judgement; Harper & Row for Religion within the limits of reason alone; Bobbs-Merrill Company Inc.
  • A Critical History of the Embodied Cognitive Research Paradigm a Review of Lawrence Shapiro’S Embodied Cognition

    A Critical History of the Embodied Cognitive Research Paradigm a Review of Lawrence Shapiro’S Embodied Cognition

    172 Book Reviews A Critical History of the Embodied Cognitive Research Paradigm A review of Lawrence Shapiro’s Embodied Cognition Author: Lawrence Shapiro Publisher: Routledge Release date: 2011 Number of pages: 233 Kevin Ryan, Department of Philosophy, Villanova University, USA Embodied Cognition by Lawrence Shapiro is a fine text that focuses on the issues of body, embodiment, and the environment in cognitive science, philosophy, and psy- chology. As the title suggests, Shapiro's book offers us a glimpse into the broadly defined, and still growing, research paradigm known as "embodied" cognition. Within this particular paradigm the body and environment are placed in the fore- ground when it comes to both theoretical and empirical work on cognition and the mind. In terms of the audience for this particular text, we suggest that with its combination of systematic rigor, lucid prose, and multiple well structured exam- ples, it is a worthwhile read for scholars, casual readers, or as a useful addition to any course that contains elements of philosophy of mind or a focus on cognitive science. One way of understanding Shapiro's project is by looking at the text in two sec- tions. The first section, equivalent to the first three chapters, lays down the basic foundations in preparation for the heavy theoretical and conceptual work found in the second section. Indeed, a combination of several questions motivating this book – taken in conjunction to make up what Shapiro calls its "meta-theme" – are presented by Shapiro as the following: Does the
  • SOLIPSISM – an EXTREME of RATIONALISM

    SOLIPSISM – an EXTREME of RATIONALISM

    University of South Bohemia, Ceske Budejovice Faculty of Theology Department of Philosophy and Religious Sciences Bachelor’s Degree Thesis SOLIPSISM – An EXTREME of RATIONALISM Mentor: Daniel HEIDER, Th.D. Author: Pavao HRŠAK, Dipl. Ing. El. Study Programme: Humanities School year: 2010/2011 2011 Declaration of self-reliance Hereby I declare that I have prepared my bachelor’s degree thesis entirely on my own, using as reference sources the literature listed in the section at the end of the paper. I declare that, in concordance with Article 47b of Law 111/1998 Sb of the Legal Code of Czech Republic, I agree with making my bachelor’s degree thesis public, in unabbreviated form (or edited through omission of parts marked as archived by the Faculty of Theology) electronically in the publicly accessible part of STAG database administrated by the University of South Bohemia in Ceske Budejovice on their web pages, and with preservation of my authorial rights on the submitted text of this qualification paper. Furthermore, I agree that through the same electronic access evaluation of the mentor and the opponent would be made public, as well as a record of proceedings and results of the defense of the qualification paper, all in concordance with stipulations of the referenced law 111/1998 Sb. As well I agree with comparison of the text of my qualification paper with the database of qualification papers Theses.cz administrated by National Register of High School Qualification Papers and the system for detection of plagiarism. Date …………………… Author’s signature. ……………………… 1 Acknowledgments When, in rather advanced age and having terminated my professional career in engineering, I decided to try to return to a quite different field of interest of my teen age at the grammar school, it was clear to me that it would be impossible without expert guidance, support and patience of people dedicated to this particular field.